Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Paul of Tarsus - the first Christian?
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4060 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 166 of 219 (304000)
04-13-2006 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by lfen
04-13-2006 1:57 PM


Re: Paul and the concept of Original Sin.
The bible looks just like the kinds of things committees of human beings are producing even to this very day.
A committee??? I'm crushed . First it's Paul, now it's the Bible.
Are you just talking about Genesis or something? Don't we get any breaks for the book (Genesis, I mean) being 3,000 years old?
Surely you don't mean Paul's letters or the Gospels? Like something from a committee?
I blame all this on fundamentalists. The Bible was never meant to be a manual. It is a collection of letters, histories, and poetries, written by the followers of the God of Israel (acknowledging, of course, the big split of Judaism and Christianity in the mid to late first century).
As the history of what I consider to be my spiritual race, I think it's a pretty cool collection. Sorry about the huge warfare and genocides from several millennia ago, but the end result of our progress was a people who beat their swords into ploughshares.
Despite the hiding of our race's Gospel by state churches and their offspring, our Gospel still produces people like those described in the Gospels and Acts, who love, share everything, and don't return evil for evil.
I agree, the Bible makes a terrible manual. It was never supposed to be more than a collection of our writings, and an incomplete one at that, and for us, that's a precious thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by lfen, posted 04-13-2006 1:57 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by lfen, posted 04-13-2006 11:19 PM truthlover has replied
 Message 168 by ReverendDG, posted 04-14-2006 2:41 AM truthlover has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4678 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 167 of 219 (304085)
04-13-2006 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by truthlover
04-13-2006 4:26 PM


Re: Paul and the concept of Original Sin.
Well the committee part was first of all a reference to how the books were selected for inclusion by different churches. The role of copyists and attribution of anonymous works to known authors is not exactly a committe but how many of the epistles of Paul are his and how many have been included under his name written by someone else? The answer varies from all are Paul's to none with the mainstream somewhere in between.
Luke and Matthew both draw on Mark but have their own angle and then including all four gospels brings together a diverse and sometimes conflicting set of view points. Committee is not an exact analogy and there may be a better way to characterize the way the bishops of the early church arrived at their victories and compromises as to what the standards of belief (creeds) should be.
The committe part also refers to the differing agendas of the authors and books so that you find sections that favor belief over works, or stress the importance of works etc.
My comments were directed to the literalist fundamentalist for whom Genesis is a consistent factual scientific history of the world. The Bible as a record of the thoughts, feelings, lives of a community and tradition is of interest to me and I think that is a valid approach to that collection of books.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by truthlover, posted 04-13-2006 4:26 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by truthlover, posted 04-14-2006 9:18 AM lfen has replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4111 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 168 of 219 (304129)
04-14-2006 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by truthlover
04-13-2006 4:26 PM


Re: Paul and the concept of Original Sin.
I agree with you truth, people need to stop using the bible as some sort of manual or text book, and realize its a collection of texts on our relationship with god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by truthlover, posted 04-13-2006 4:26 PM truthlover has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4060 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 169 of 219 (304181)
04-14-2006 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by lfen
04-13-2006 11:19 PM


Re: Paul and the concept of Original Sin.
Ifen,
I see. I thought it was the content/words you were saying sounded like a committee. I agree the choice of books was the work of a committee, sadly.
I read Eusebius' history of the church that he wrote in AD 323. I then read Sozomen's, written just 50 years later. The difference between the two is mind-numbing. The first great council was held in 325; the bishops were given political positions; the public switched to Christianity because the emperor did. The result was astounding, and those two histories, one picking up where the other left off, mark the differences well. It's like reading about two different planets--no exaggeration.
My comments were directed to the literalist fundamentalist for whom Genesis is a consistent factual scientific history of the world.
Actually, I knew that. I was making sure it was clear the target was not the writings that make up the Bible (though I wish they were free of its confining covers), but the fundamentalists who have turned the Bible into a manual of the universe. Shoot, they've practically turned it into a magic book that is practically a god in itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by lfen, posted 04-13-2006 11:19 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by lfen, posted 04-14-2006 2:25 PM truthlover has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4678 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 170 of 219 (304245)
04-14-2006 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by truthlover
04-14-2006 9:18 AM


Re: Paul and the concept of Original Sin.
This book is about the Old Testament. I've posted about it once in a thread to which Arachnophile replied.
The secular Bible : why nonbelievers must take religion seriously
Author : Berlinerblau, Jacques.
Publisher, Date : New York : Cambridge University Press, 2005.
ISBN : 0521853141 (hardback) - Description : xiii, 217 p. ; 24 cm.
Berlinerblau has a Ph.D. in ancient languages and I think this is a book that those interested in the Bible ought to read. Not neccesarily to agree with but he provides a very textual based analysis.
Basically he points out that the Bible was written by aggregates of scribes and copists over hundreds of years and that after centuries of copying there are many passages in the bible that no longer make sense.
Translators do their best to come up with what it might mean but reading it in the original or a literal translation would find between missing words, uncertain words etc. it's impossible to tell what the original meaning of some passages was. I was surprised to see the condition of some of the texts.
I came away with the impression of how ancient some of the bible was. How it has been preserved and yet that preservation has not been perfect by any means.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by truthlover, posted 04-14-2006 9:18 AM truthlover has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by anglagard, posted 04-15-2006 11:06 AM lfen has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 171 of 219 (304253)
04-14-2006 3:04 PM


Can I just say I am really enjoying reading this thread? A wonderful read and learning experience.
I agree that Paul has been used and abused, but I also feel he had his own agenda. The book "The Letter Writer, Paul's Background and Torah Perspective" by Tim Hegg helped give me a better view of Paul's work.
There are still some difficult places and Truthlover seems to give me more to think about as does this thread. Thanks all.
Carry on Purple

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by truthlover, posted 04-14-2006 4:57 PM purpledawn has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4060 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 172 of 219 (304279)
04-14-2006 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by purpledawn
04-14-2006 3:04 PM


but I also feel he had his own agenda...Carry on
Well, let me carry on by clarifying something. I'm not sure what you meant by his own agenda, but I am certainly not saying Paul wasn't responsible for new things. I just don't think he's responsible for the Protestant version of "no works."
Paul was obviously a force to be reckoned with, and he shook the world and history. His focus on being out from under the Law looks stronger than the other apostles to me. He made the church a mostly gentile entity, something that probably wouldn't have happened quickly had he not been an apostle. (Though the gentile church in Antioch was not something he started, and the first gentile convert was brought in by Peter.)
Anyway, I say all that to say that if all someone were to say of Paul was that "he had his own agenda," I obviously believe it was really God's agenda, but I couldn't and wouldn't argue with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by purpledawn, posted 04-14-2006 3:04 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by purpledawn, posted 04-14-2006 6:15 PM truthlover has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 173 of 219 (304306)
04-14-2006 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by truthlover
04-14-2006 4:57 PM


Paul's Agenda
quote:
I just don't think he's responsible for the Protestant version of "no works."
I agree. When read as a whole I don't feel he was either.
quote:
His focus on being out from under the Law looks stronger than the other apostles to me.
From what I have read concerning Jewish history it seems that lessening the weight of the law was a concern for many Jews especially the less fortunate.
I view Paul as an evangelist who seems to have a conflict with the original disciples. I don't really have a clear viewpoint at this stime. Just little bits that show up here and there. Of course the more dogma and tradition I get out of my head the more my view changes. That's why I'm enjoying reading this thread.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by truthlover, posted 04-14-2006 4:57 PM truthlover has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 174 of 219 (304410)
04-15-2006 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by lfen
04-14-2006 2:25 PM


Re: Paul and the concept of Original Sin.
Since this forum is forcing me to look back upon what I have read, perhaps this quote may be of interest in light of the previous post.
"Those who look upon the Bible as a message sent down by God from Heaven to men, will doubtless cry out that I have committed the sin against the Holy Ghost because I have asserted that the Word of God is faulty, mutilated, tampered with, and inconsistent; that we posess it only in fragments, and that the original of the covenant which God made with the Jews has been lost. However, I have no doubt that a little reflection will cause them to desist from this uproar: for not only reason but the expressed opinions of prophets and apostles openly proclaim that God's eternal Word and covenant, no less than the true religion, is Divinely inscribed in human hearts, that is in the human mind, and that this is the true original of God's covenant, stamped with his own seal, namely the idea of Himself, as it were, with the image of His Godhood."
Spinoza from "Of the Sacredness of Scripture" first paragraph, chapter 12.
I just thought it was interesting that the same problems with biblical interpretation were being considered 350 years ago. I don't mean to be OT, just that the quote needed to be in its entirety to be fully understandable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by lfen, posted 04-14-2006 2:25 PM lfen has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by jar, posted 04-15-2006 12:47 PM anglagard has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 175 of 219 (304425)
04-15-2006 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by anglagard
04-15-2006 11:06 AM


What is scripture?
We tend to look at Scripture through the eyes of today. But that is not really a valid POV. We need to remember that when Paul or others in the Bible speak of Scripture they are not talking about the Bible. Scripture at that time included a far broader base of material than today. There were numerous Gospels in circulation at the time, at least 30 and maybe as many as 80. In addition there were many, many Epistles, letters sent to particular peoples or churches dealing with something specifically related to that church or a particular message.
This was also true of early Jewish writings as well and there were books like Enoch and First and Second Adam and Eve. We need to remember that the Torah really takes form even after the Christian era and that even then we find the Baraitot, or external teachings.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by anglagard, posted 04-15-2006 11:06 AM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by truthlover, posted 04-15-2006 1:41 PM jar has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4060 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 176 of 219 (304440)
04-15-2006 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by jar
04-15-2006 12:47 PM


Re: What is scripture?
There were numerous Gospels in circulation at the time, at least 30 and maybe as many as 80.
I have to dissent here. While I agree with your general point about the Scriptures not being as defined as they are today, your statement about "in circulation" is not accurate in any context I'd be interested in. There is no evidence that anywhere near 30 gospels were in circulation in the apostle's churches. The gnostics were constantly producing their own works, and most of those works were never in circulation in the churches with apostolic succession.
In Paul's time, many of the gnostics would have been in the churches, but they would not have produced all those gospels yet.
My guess would me that not much more than 3 or 4 others (Gospel of the Hebrews, for one) actually circulated in apostolic churches, and even those were not given any wide credence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by jar, posted 04-15-2006 12:47 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by jar, posted 04-15-2006 1:55 PM truthlover has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 177 of 219 (304442)
04-15-2006 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by truthlover
04-15-2006 1:41 PM


Re: What is scripture?
My guess would me that not much more than 3 or 4 others (Gospel of the Hebrews, for one) actually circulated in apostolic churches, and even those were not given any wide credence.
Well, you're not going to get a really big argument from me related to the actual number of documents in circulation, but I think we can likely agree that it is certainly greater than what ended up in any of the common Canons, and that it likely varied from area to area, church to church.
But I do disagree that the only distinction is the Apostle's Churches and Gnostics. There were many, many Apostle's and TTBOMK we don't even know who many were or where they went. There is just a whole lot more we don't know about the first few centuries of Christianity than we do know.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by truthlover, posted 04-15-2006 1:41 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by truthlover, posted 04-15-2006 4:58 PM jar has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4060 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 178 of 219 (304469)
04-15-2006 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by jar
04-15-2006 1:55 PM


Re: What is scripture?
There were many, many Apostle's and TTBOMK we don't even know who many were or where they went. There is just a whole lot more we don't know about the first few centuries of Christianity than we do know.
Well, I don't agree with this, but I can't argue it with you. You'll get plenty of scholars who agree with you (as will I). My personal take on what I've read is that the early churches--the ones I'd call my spiritual ancestors and that I would give ear to--were very aware of who they were and which apostles they trusted.
I'd have to agree that there were other apostles, other gospels, and other churches--though not many that weren't gnostic--but I don't think "catholic" churches like Ephesus, Corinth, Smyrna, Rome, Alexandria, etc. gave them any hearing.
Having said that, there are scholars who have read the same things I've read (though many not as much as I've read them), and who know more about the surrounding countries and environment than I do, who would back you up, not me. I've read others--I think unbiased ones like W.C. Frend--who would agree with me, although Frend thinks the gnostic Christians may have outnumbered the "catholic" ones in the late first century and gotten to some Roman cities before them.
I haven't read a lot of histories, preferring to read the primary sources myself. That's not always good, but I have read a lot of introductions and short commentaries about early church writings that list various scholars opinions on just such topics as these, so I think I'm representing their opinions fairly when I say I could get scholars on both sides. Especially the influence and size of the gnostics were under great debate in the 1990's.
Note: I put "catholic" in parentheses so that readers would know I'm not meaning the official Roman Catholic or any other official church.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by jar, posted 04-15-2006 1:55 PM jar has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5007 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 179 of 219 (305437)
04-20-2006 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by truthlover
04-12-2006 7:19 AM


Paul and sacrifice for sins
Hi truthlover,
I've been re-reading Romans, in light of what both you and jar said about justification and behaviour / faith. You have an interesting take on Paul and I read carefully what you've been saying, though I still haven't made my mind up. One thing I do find hard to accept though is that the notion that Jesus was an atonement sacrifice existed before Paul.
You've brought up a number of passages in support of this argument :
quote:
1 Jn 1:7 says, "the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from all sin."
Rev 1:5 says he "washed us from our sins in his own blood."
The author of John wrote his gospel and epistles long after Paul and he echoes Paul on a number of points, one of the most prominent being the reference to Jesus as a Paschal lamb (1 Cor. 5:7, John 1:29 ). John even altered the timing sequence in his gospel (against both the synoptics and historical probability) to make it appear that Jesus was executed at the same time as the Paschal lamb, so as to enhance the symbolic nature of his death. Paul introduced the idea, John built on it.
quote:
Matt 8:17 quotes Is 53 in reference to taking our infirmities and bearing our sicknesses. Isaiah adds "wounded for our transgressions" in that passage.
Isaiah 53 is a disputed passage at best. Some say it's referring to Israel and some say it's referring to the Messiah. Even if it is about the Messiah, this is the Jewish Messiah he's talking about, not Jesus. Isaiah is referring to the Messiah in other chapters too and it can't be Jesus as he's attributing a number of events to him that Jesus never fulfilled (Is 2:2-4, 11:9, 11:6-9, 25:8). Claiming that it's Jesus he's talking about is just post-hoc reasoning, wishful thinking. Throughout the gospels the writers have attempted to shoehorn OT prophecies into Jesus's life, sometimes with comical consequences (i.e. Jesus riding on two donkeys). Even so, Matt is quoting it in support of Jesus healing the sick and possessed, there's no implication of atonement sacrifice there.
quote:
1 Pet 3:18 says, "Christ has suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God."
I understand that 1 Pet is dated around the time of John's gospel, or in any case long after Paul's views were in circulation.
quote:
Matt 26:28 says, "This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."
I think this is another case of post-hoc reasoning . The Greek text is "eis aphesin ton amartion". The preposition "eis" is commonly used in reference to a future goal, a bit like 'towards' in English. The clause is better translated as "...for future remission of sins". Jesus is merely saying here that his blood is sealing the new covenant which can lead people to salvation / forgiveness by following his teachings, i.e. follow ten commandments, the 2 greatest, etc.
Atonement sacrifice is something the Jews did to atone for already committed sins. The scapegoat took upon it specific sins and the ritual had to be repeated for new sins. If the preposition in the passage above was "because of", then it might have been reasonable to interpret it as an expression of impending atonement sacrifice, i.e. Jesus shedding his blood to take upon him our committed sins. However, as it stands, I think that would be a wild extrapolation. I think Jesus is simply saying 'I'm serious and I'm genuine, if you do as I taught and did your sins will be forgiven'. He knows that we all sin, only God is perfect, but if we follow the commandments we can be forgiven (Mat 19:17 ). In previous chapters of Matthew he repeatedly forgives and heals people (even non-Jews) purely on the basis of repentance and their faith in his word NOT his death. Jesus, a devout Jew himself, telling his Jewish students that his death will atone for all future sins, just wouldn't (and still doesn't) make any sense.
The same goes for the 'ransom' reference that Jesus uses about himself (Mat 20:28) . Only, in retrospect can we associate this with Paul's teaching on sacrifice. Occam's razor suggests that Jesus is speaking literally and that he is given up by his disciples / Jewish people in exchange for their freedom from prosecution. If he's using allegory, then it's only symbolic of his life spent serving others.
I think the problem here is that people have this unwaranted belief that Paul *must* be right and then try to retro-fit Jesus's teachings to align them with those of Paul. If we pretend, just for a moment, that Paul never existed and look at the synoptics in their own light we can catch a glimpse of what Jesus was all about. The rest is just the myth on top of the man.

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by truthlover, posted 04-12-2006 7:19 AM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by lfen, posted 04-20-2006 1:37 PM Legend has replied
 Message 183 by truthlover, posted 04-20-2006 10:12 PM Legend has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4678 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 180 of 219 (305494)
04-20-2006 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Legend
04-20-2006 9:31 AM


Re: Paul and sacrifice for sins
The epistles came first however and then later the gospels. I would say the gospels built on the ideas of Paul as well as other apostles.
Have you read Doherty's Jesus Puzzle?
http://home.ca.inter.net/oblio/home.htm
I don't see enough evidence one way or the other for a historical Jesus, but whether understood as a historical teacher or as Paul's spiritual saviour I think it's clear that there were quite a few ideas and interpretations of what his functions was and what the religion taught and a number of these conflicting theories were included in the NT selection. It's contradictory and if there was a historical teacher I don't see how we can ever sort out his teachings from all the interpretations and misunderstandings.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Legend, posted 04-20-2006 9:31 AM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Legend, posted 04-20-2006 6:41 PM lfen has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024